Why not scrap military pensions, and pay more money to military people?

Question

My idea is that after a 6 to 8 year length of service, military personel get a hefty raise, and a government guarenteed retirement plan, that they invest in themselves, such as the Thrift Savings Plan. They could invest up to 50% of their pay. Also, not have a mandatory retirement time in service, but mandatory age 60 for anyone under E-7, under O-4, and WO's with no required retirement. For those with service connected disability, a Tri-Care plan and Veterans Administration Health Plan, and Tri-Care/ any military medical facility, at age 60 (Tri-care to include full Medical, Dental, and Vission, Veterans Administration for Service connected).

If you read the explanation, you would see that you would retire with more money. I have put my @%% on the line in two wars, forest fires, floods, riots, etc. 8 total years active, 15 years National Guard. I did a lot of other time in training, other than the required one weekend a month, 15 days out of the year. Physical fitness was on my own time, after civilian jobs, had to do it on my own time, not during duty hours, like active component does. Short term call ups for emergency's, minimum of about 30 days a year. I have been in war zones a total of five years, when added together, which I was shot at, mortered, rocketed, and had hand grenades and roadside bombs explode in my vicinity. I have spent more time in war zones, where bullets and bombs were flying, than most active duty people have. My idea makes it possible for us to make our own choices.

Obviously, the only people that have answered, are a bunch of socilists that do not believe in personal accountability, and doubt that military personel have the common sense to make investments for themselves. The pay raise I am talking about, would be doubling the base pay and giving what used to be called 'pro pay', which was the same in the civilian world as incentive pay, to keep people in certain critical skills. Most re-ups are not for retirement, but for the bonuses that that are offered for re-enlistment.

Answer 1

I'm not sure if I like your pay idea or not, but making the minimum age for retirement sixty would not work for several reasons. First, the military is all about promotion of experienced, skilled members. If there were people waiting an extra twenty to thirty years to get out, not only would promotion rates drop incredibly low, you would have people stuck in positions where they are overqualified simply because their rank would not let them go any higher. Here I am thinking mostly enlisted, although I can't see that the officers would be happy about a lower promotion rate, either. Second, the military needs fit, healthy members to be the majority, not half or the minority. It is a sad fact that our bodies decay as we get older. That is why you do not generally see a military member over the age of 50 to 55. Such people are the exception, not the rule. The military is physically demanding, and the human body tends to start breaking down under such treatment long before 30, let alone 60! There are many more medical problems associated with advancing age, as well, such as heart and lung conditions, frail bones, and failing eyesight (which cannot be corrected with laser surgery all of the time, and especially as you get older). ANY one of any age should be able to receive medical benefits from the military--amputees, those with the seemingly inevitable knee problems (my right one is starting to act up recently), hearing problems, eyesight issues from starting at computer screens day in and day out. There are any number of physical side affects that can be directly attributed, with proof, to military service, and you shouldn't have to wait until you're 60 to be compensated for giving up good physical health in service to your country.

Answer 2

Not a good idea. I agree that the military pay, retirement pay, and benefits needs to be looked at, HARD, and adjusted, but your idea just doesn't work.

A hefty pay raise after 6-8 years TIS? Why then? Why not after 10 years? Then you're over the hump. Why not 15 years? Then your on the downhill slide?

There is a gov't retirement plan in place. It's currently called "High 3". That means that I receive the average of my highest 3 years of active duty. That works for me. My retirement is enough to pay for my mortgage, and it's more than a lot of my civilian counterparts ever receive.

TSP is on line and working well. I've only been investing for 2 years, and already have quite the nest egg. PLUS, I been investing myself, so I'm G2G.

Mandatory retirement at 60? No way. There is NO ONE that will stay in the military that long, even if you give them a "hefty raise". 20 -30 years TIS and done. As for the mandatory out after a certain rank, it already exists. If you don't move up, you move out.

TRI-CARE and the VA are already in place to take care of the vets, ANY vet, regardless of whether they have a service related disability or not. We also have the Soldier's and Sailor's home.

Perhaps a little more research would have been good before posting this question.

Answer 3

Although I respect your opinion - you paint yourself to be a true idiot. I am an Active Duty Captain, currently with my a** on the line in Iraq.

How do you plan on keeping people in the military long enough to become Sr. NCOs and Officers if there is no retirement? These people live their lives and stay longer to obtain a retirement... if that was not an option, they would have to leave and get civilian jobs so that their futures would be secure, and their valuable experience would be lost.

Just becuase you haven't done a good job with your own financial management and made poor career choices (15 years in the guard and 5 active duty) and don't get the same retirement as the Active Duty (those who served AD their entire career) doesn't mean we should change how we operate.

I thank you for your 20 years service, but you knew the deal from day one. So quit your *****'en and get a job!

Answer 4

Honestly would like to know what you are smoking.

I have been in 14 years now and there is not one civilian job as hard on a person than this. When you are working between 10 and 16 hours a day (seven days a week depending on station), get deployed, move at least 10 times in 20 years, field time, etc. There is no reason to get much past 20 years. The system in place is fine. To change it would be to force a LOT of career leaders out of the service.

Answer 5

Before I would support an idea like that I'd want to be sure the majority of those in the military approved. Not being active duty military I'd be really reluctant for congress to make such changes without overwhelming support by military personnel, especially career military.


googleplex He served so I guess he's entitled to that opinion.

Answer 6

Believe it or not, some service members (or their wives) would spend the money. Then at the end of a pretty tough 20 or more years, the service member would have nothing.

Nice idea though.

Answer 7

Let's see you spend 20 years putting your a$$ on the line and then ask that question.

Answer 8

Just one question.... what's your MOS. If it's not a 11 series... don't be a cry baby.

Answer 9

I agree with google.

Answer 10

sorry that dog won't hunt